Boon

Psh. You guys should make the trip up to New Hampshire sometime, where I'm originally from. I think we have more state liquor stores on our highways then we do African-American citizens. It's pathetic how white we are.

I've never lived in the South, so I'm not going to defend or condemn it. But shouldn't it be noted that in many northern states (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.) the African-American population is like, 5% at best? If you're going to argue that exposure is the only way to cure racism, don't count on racism being over in all of the north just yet.

But im still pretty sure that the majority hate JBL because he is big guy who gets pushed only cuz he is a big guy , even if they wont admit it. If JBL was US champion, I don't think he'd be hated anywhere near the level he is. That's because the US Title is turning into a joke.

Exactly.

If I had to, I'd argue that more businessmen become conservatives and more teachers become liberals. It's not uncommon for political affiliation to change as people get older. Once people are making a ton on money, they support people who typically want to protect their interests.

Don't be surprised to see something w/ Torrie Wilson/Hiroko.

Well, what about Kurt Angle's Invitational? That seems to be like every week. I thought they were building toward something with that, like a debut or comeback or something. If that's the case, they might've been building to Show, but then he wrestled Nunzio...

I hope they burn Cena's title. It looks ridiculous.

Well, one last thing, per CNN. Election turnout for 1996- 94,686,514 Election turnout for 2000- 105,326,325 (Up by 11% from 1996) Election turnout for 2004- 118,304,480 (Up by 12% from 2000) Incredibly high turnout? It grew a whole 1% more in 2004 then it did in 2000. Giving you the advantage that percentages change with larger numbers, the total vote count went up by about 11 million in 2000, 13 million in 2004.

Trips likes the really gold belt.

Turnout wasn't as big as everyone thinks it was. Higest estimates are 60%, when typically its 53-55%. Still not "incredibly high" in any context. Hillary isn't running, Rudy isn't running, and neither is Dean. Oh, forgive me for using shorthand. Last I checked this was a forum, not a term paper.

Good approval in NY? Weird. Almost like NY is a liberal state, and she's their Senator... Sorry. That was mean. But still- we need another Clinton like we need a hole in the head. (I'd say the same thing about the Bush's if Jeb ran, btw)

Once again. You're missing the point. We don't have to attack Dean's record- and I agree, it'd be tough to. But he's not the one running!!! He's the chair of the committee, whoopie! Good for him! You won't convince me that part of him being named chair is b/c people feel bad that the media blew his little scream out of proportion. I'm not worried. I'm sure the Democrats will do what they always do, and that is nominate the guy that can lose to the smallest possible margin.

No. We're scared of Dean b/c he yells and shrieks at his supporters. We're a quiet people. (That's a joke.) Dean's not the one who is running, BTW. People seem to be missing that. He's a figurehead, and that's about where it ends. He's right that the Democratic party needs to be more then just opposition to the Republicans. Now- good luck trying to find that identity. Anywho- I'm surprised I'm even responding to what someone who loves Michael Moore is saying, but... #1 If you call 55-60% total American turnout "incredibly high," you're the one who is delusional, my friend. Spend some time outside of the US, you'll see just who shitty our elections really are. #2 You really don't understand how many people hate Hillary Clinton. Voter turnout was bigger (not by much) this year b/c people loved/hated Bush. Like I said elsewhere, Hillary is one of the most divisive characters in American political history. Republicans and Dems alike would come out to shoot that bitch down. Republicans hate her, and so do a lot of Dems.

.... You're kidding, right? Please tell me that you're not trying to be taken seriously w/ a post like that, b/c every shred of credibility that I held for what you were saying just went out the window. Anyway. I'm not saying there is a liberal/conservative bias in the media, but I attended a lecture from a noted news analyst who noted that 85-90% of the people who work in the media identify themselves as liberal. Take that for what its worth. Interesting note- the lecture was held at a liberal university in Boston. I think it's nearly impossible to report the news w/o putting a spin on it. I just can't find any evidence to support a claim that there is a conservative bias in the media outside of Fox (which as a conservative, I don't even watch). Can any of you?

Are you shitting me? If it's Hillary in 2008, forget about it. There is no situation where the conservative base turns against their candidates / potential candidates when paired up against HER. Forget Bill - SHE is the Clinton that the conservative base REALLY hates. It doesn't even matter if the Republican candidate winds up being someone who's considered more "liberal" like Rudy - they'll support him over Hillary, because the alternative (i.e. Hillary winning) is much, much too frightening to contemplate. Look, your little scenario fails to take into consideration that Bush has done a lot of things which have upset his own party, but they sure didn't turn against him in this past election. Why? Because no matter what their issues with him were, they couldn't perceive that things would go better for them if Kerry was elected. Yeah. I agree, totally. A Republican that's not totally in-line w/ the party is better then a Democrat who is nowhere near in-line w/ the party.

I'm a conservative. We have a resident group? Anyway- your points are valid. I've thought about that a lot, and I've come to a few conclusions. Hillary is a really divisive character- I know a TON of democrats who despise her. I don't think she'd get as much support as you'd think. I think that the GOP would probably run McCain as her opposition. The only other names I've heard tossed around are Rudy (he'll never get it) or Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Gov.) which I think would be a waste, b/c he wouldn't win his home state (which Gore didn't do either). I truly believe that the first woman President as well as the first black President will be a Republican. Dems are too divided- they have no identity. If the Republicans nominate a woman/African-American, s/he will win, b/c they will have the support of the GOP as well as many Democratic women/blacks.

According to stereotypes and Family Guy, only black people watch UPN. Why would they want to watch Booker by held down? Disclaimer: This post was in complete jest, meant to offend nobody.

How about the "Remeber When We Won" Center. Or "This Isn't Fenway or Foxboro, Nobody Cares" Arena. Seriously tho, Celts just got about .500, they're going all the way.

Lots of Boston folks- Why no mention of Tommy Heinson? Blame the refs, get overly excited, nearly have a heart attack every night- what more could you ask from a former pro turned announcer?

Bah- Italians are really only in Mass. Anyway- I agree. Thank God we didn't lose another one.

since 1993 Yes well. You get the idea.

There is no possible way to make Smackdown equivalent to RAW w/o hurting RAW. If they poured millions of dollars and talent into Smackdown, we'd all be calling RAW the inferior brand. It's really quite textbook- comparing two brands, one will always be better then the other. It's like a parent favoring their child. Yeah, you say that you don't have a favorite, but it's human nature. One will always be favored over the other. It's very much in Vince's character to prefer the brand that makes him more money- and that has always been RAW, from Day 1.

Wait a second folks, we're overlooking the most important thing, here. Lita's gone again!! Woohoo!!

The only time I was ever interested in Lita is when she almost broke her neck. So close... too bad.